Offensiveness (request for comments)

[andrewducker]

I posted an entry earlier today with this LJ Icon.

It's not a nice LJ icon.

It's clearly offensive.

In fact the keyword for this icon is Offensive.

And prynne asked me if I could be convinced to delete it. Her reason being that it contains the word "retarded", and she objects to that word (link now public).

I don't disagree that it's an offensive word. I'd certainly never use it in normal conversation.

But then I'd never say any of the things in the icon. It's there, largely, as a list of things _I_ find offensive.

And I think, myself, that it serves a purpose of saying that "Andrew finds all of these statements offensive, and wouldn't care to hear them from people around him."

In particular, it says "Goths are Retarded", which I _clearly_ can't mean, as I have numerous friends who are, or have been goths, and I've seen the Sisters of Mercy live three times, and have a large collection of black t-shirts. Nobody that knows me could in any way think I mean it as something other than "Here are things that highlight idiots when they say them."

But it's not necessarily obvious from the icon. You could read it as "Here are things Andy believes." if you didn't know me very well. You could more easily read it as "Here are things Andy finds amusing."

Knowing the internet like I do, I know that it's very easy not to recognise irony ("Saying one thing and meaning something quite different"). Many's the time I've made a comment intended to be taking as silliness and had it taken seriously.

So should I take it down? Should I depend on my audience to realise what it means?

Comments

[secritcrush.livejournal.com]

I thought it was really funny.

[andrewducker]

Funny because you believed the things, or funny because you didn't and found them laughable? Or just indefinably funny?

[diotina.livejournal.com]

I think it's okay--simply because it attacks *everyone/everything*, which contextualises it pretty efficiently.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

I would add a frame into the icon that only shows up briefly (presuming it is an animated thing, since i don't see them) stating the purpose of this icon.

On a tangent, someone posted on a community that I watch and didn't lj-cut something, saying that "sorry, my LJ client is just being gay today." She got very offended when I commented suggesting that wasn't a very polite term to use.

Thinking a little longer, I can understand her point of view.

Not using any specific examples, it can be clear that someone is being ironic, or doing something for humourous effect, or for the sheer ridiculousness of it. The statement itself isn't offensive. Some of the words used can be.

If, for instance, you'd used a racist or, for example, a derogatory epithet for a member of a certain religion, I might find it offensive. Not because I felt you meant it, but because the very word is offensive, in any context.

Now, I appreciate that many comedians and indeed activists with in minority/mocked etc groups like to "reclaim" words on occasion, but still...

So I think you can depend on your audience to realise what you mean, but you shouldn't assume that they won't find words in it offensive, regardless of context.

[andrewducker]

Gay, by the way, has become an insult _entirely_ separate from the homosexual thing. Apparently lots of young people have learnt "Gay" as an epithet meaning "a bit crap" long before they have any idea about homosexuality.

Which, if you ask me, is insidious.

I take your general point. Although I'm not trying to reclaim anything, so much as point out language I find offensive.

[prynne.livejournal.com]

a third thought to consider:

Does it matter what it means to you?

As human beings living in this world of ours, we have an opportunity to come in contact with many other human beings. And with the advent of the telephone, telegraph, the radio, the television, the internet ...blahblahblah this opportunity is increased exponentially every day.

There are a whole lot of people in this world who come into some sort of contact with you and are in a position to be directly influenced by you on a daily basis. Even if you live something of a hermit-like existence.

Consider for a moment all the people who see what you post here, are influenced/changed/affected by it, and then go on to influence/change and affect others that they encounter, who then go on to influence...blahblahblah etc at an exponential rate.

Thats a whole heaping load of folks.

And while *you* might consider this sort of base attempt at backlash humor as nothing more than sarcasm at its best - what of the ones who see it and don't make that connection? What of the ones that admire you and take your including such a message in your presentation to the world as you condoning such an attitute? What of the ones who measure themselves and match their attempts at humor and being funny to what you have projected here?

Do you not have some responsibility to avoid spreading such hurtful negativity whenever you possibly can?

And what of those with abilities different from yours who read such statements and are fundamentally hurt by it? regardless of whether this was your intent, is it not now your fault, for having put the message out there in the first place?

I think that we as people have a unique opportunity to influence, change and direct the tone of the people we come in contact with. If you consider my exponential contact idea from above we even possibly have the opportunity the change our world and make it more what we'd like it to be - a place where everyone regardless of their differences is valued and judged on their character, not their whatever-it-is-that-makes-them-different-from-you.

And given that ... why on earth would you ever consider it more important to be "sarcastically funny" (an opinion that is much open to debate from me, as I'm sure you can imagine) than to do what you can to avoid hurting (and passing on the weapon to hurt) others?

[andrewducker]

See, I felt (and still somewhat feel, although less certainly) that the meaning of the icon and the meaning of your post were one and the same. "Here are things that you should not say." and thus I was doing exactly what you want me to do, in the comment above, by using it...

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

I've seen that icon a couple of times and thought "What the hell??" before figuring it out (or remembering that I had figured it out already). That being said, it's not that hard to realize the point, if you pay a bit of attention.

If it were me, I'd leave it. I'd have made it, I'd have used it for a reason, and I wouldn't really be so interested in having people who couldn't grok the irony stick around that I'd cater to them.

But really, it doesn't matter what I would do. It's how you feel, what it's worth to you, and whether you're willing to accept that you might get some flak for it for one reason or another, that's important.

[chuma.livejournal.com]

I thought it was just a blanket rebuttal to everything that LJ is used to bitch about, in a completely transparent and ironic way.

Some people take things too seriously, and coming from me, that's saying something. :)

[poisonduk.livejournal.com]

It's just irony. reading one screen on the animation might make you think it's offensive but actually following them through makes you realise that's it's irony. It's mocking the people who mock.

I'd say don't take it down as I find it inoffensive when you read and analyse what it's saying. Jeez Jimmy Carr says more offensive things during his stage shows, and people get the fact it's irony!

Removing it is almost bowing to the no breast feeding pics on LJ pressure.

[xquiq.livejournal.com]

I think it's a great icon because it's so completely over the top.

There was no danger of me thinking that's what you actually believe since I can't believe anyone would hold all of those beliefs!

[autopope.livejournal.com]

1) What makes you think that everyone who happens across your LJ knows you? (On the internet nobody knows you're not a bigot^Wdog.)

2) You may be able to see the icon's keyword, but I can't. So I have no way of knowing the context in which you intend it to be interpreted.

3) It's an animated image and animated images are fuckwittedly annoying. (They're eyeball attractants and they slurp CPU cycles to no good purpose.)

[rosamicula.livejournal.com]

Your first two points demonstrate the potential efficacy of the icon.

1) What makes you think that everyone who happens across your LJ knows you? (On the internet nobody knows you're not a bigot^Wdog.)

If someone sees only that icon and pole-vaults to conclusions about him and scurries away offended - then bingo! - he's avoided having a judgemental fuckwit on his f-list.

2) You may be able to see the icon's keyword, but I can't. So I have no way of knowing the context in which you intend it to be interpreted.

But the icon is always accompanied by text and a link to its owner's journal. If an icon offends, or appears to contradict the words in a comment, you can go and have a look at the journal. It wouldn't take a particularly impressive intellect to gauge that andrewducker is not some vegan-bashing neo-nazi who likes tripping goths over their own platform shoes and ripping out their hair extensions.

Plus, anyone who wants to see how the user designates their own icons can see the all their icons and keywords by clicking on the icon on the userinfo page.

As for your third point, I couldn't agree more. Some overproduced usericons have the same potential to irritate as crass ringtones on mobiles.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

My initial reaction was "here's a tiresome person who likes being offensive", though I admit having "BUSH 2004" in the middle of all the non-political stuff got a slight smile.

Maybe I'm not your intended audience, but I didn't have a clear enough notion of your personality to realize you were just kidding or doing a parody of offensiveness rather than trying to be offensive. The good news is that I wasn't annoyed enough to remember it as "Andrew Ducker is tiresome"--it would have been filed under "oh god, more of the same".

At this point, it's just filed under "Andrew Ducker tried some communication which didn't work the way he intended".

I vote against the icon--animation, especially animation with that many images, is enough of a time and attention sink that it should be pretty or funny or clever, and the icon wasn't.

[avatar.livejournal.com]

I think that if that's what you think about you using that icon, then you're well in your rights to keep it there. There's nothing wrong with that kind of perspective.

As for everyone else who thinks something else, any kind of negativity they get from it is their problem. Something they decided or judged for you is something they need to fix, not you need to fix. If anyone's offended, they can talk to you about it and be less offended assuming they're open minded enough to realise one perspective does not override all perspectives.

[cx650.livejournal.com]

I did have something to say but I decided that my irony might be mistaken for insult.

[darkoshi]

The first time I saw the icon, I knew you well enough to know those weren't statements you would agree with. While watching the icon, I think I was a bit intrigued/puzzled as to the reason for the statements... until the Bush 2004 one, which seemed to be the punchline, and made the entire thing seem amusing.

I don't think you should remove the entire icon. As for removing or changing the word "retarded", I'm not sure. I think this whole discussion... unfortunately, prynne's page which was linked to is still f-locked, as I can't access it, so I can't see what she originally said about it... but I think this whole discussion at least has served to remind that the word "retarded" can be seen as offensive... not so much so to most people, perhaps, in which case it is just an insult, but to people with learning disabilities. To the latter group of people, even seeing the word used in a sarcastic context could be upsetting, because it shows that some people think that their disability is something so bad that it can be used as an insult. It might feel sort of like how I feel when I see/hear people make jokes about vegetarians, or females who don't shave. Yes, I can just ignore it and/or pretend to be amused, because I know that the other people don't really mean it maliciously, but still it does hurt in a way.

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

I always pegged that icon (I've seen it around) as a troll's icon. I always figured it was meant to piss off anyone naive enough to take the bait.

And, myself, I'm too tired of hearing most of those attitudes touted by people who *are* serious to have anything but a negative reaction when I see it. But that's not your fault. Like I said, it's mostly because I see it mostly being used by trolls.

So, I figure, no one who knows you will figure you are serious about that icon, but people who don't know you may mistake you for a troll.

[kellibunny.livejournal.com]

Absolutely do not take it down and please don't every take life as seriously as the one who asked you to.

One of the comments above is pretty much how i feel about it: I don't think you have to do more than watch the icon to be able to interpret the irony. One offensive statement could be misinterpreted, but so many, one after another, is too much exaggeration to be interpreted straight-faced.

It's funny> Having an entirely serious, and sometimes rude, discussion about it is even more hilarious.

[neriedes.livejournal.com]

Andy! I don't even know you _that_ well, but as soon as I saw the icon, I didn't think that it was anything else but ironic and I could have written that post (disclaimer) for you.

I don't think you should delete it. Linguistics wouldn't be the fascinating subject it is if we all had to communicate literally all the time.

[awdrey-gore.livejournal.com]

The politically correct reclamation of words annoys me and for anyone to object to the use of the word retarded in this mf-ing context is nitpicking to the point of vapidity. Yes, I said it. Vapidity.

Linguistically, this is why you should not remove the icon: I myself seldom use the word retarded but that is not out of any cultural sensitivity--it's just a preference. Word usage changes and our mother tongue is fluid. Words do not exist in a uni-definition vacuum. Once people who were mentally subnormal were called a host of names that they are no longer called, words that were hierarchical to the level of mental retardation, such as imbecile, idiot, and moron. These words are now a part of the lexicon used to describe silly, odd, stupid and offensive behaviors, no longer linked exclusively to the description of the mentally subnormal. Had you used any of those words in the icon, would anyone have become offended? No, because those word meanings and usages have changed over time, as it is currently changing--if not already changed--with retarded. Additionally, since most people describe the mentally subnormal as "mentally handicapped" these days instead of using the word retarded, or they use the specific name of the condition that causes the mental subnormality, like Downs Syndrome or Prader-Willi Syndrome, taking offense over the use of the word retarded in this context is specious.

Socially, this is why you should keep the icon: The commentary in your journal makes it clear who you are and what you are about. Your icons are secondary and if anyone changes their word usage and opinion of the world as a whole based what is so very clearly an icon meant to be humorous and possibly ironic (because who is to say some goths are not retards--ever think of that Andrew? all the retarded goths may be upset that you didn't make that clear!!), then they are too literal to waste much time with. Additionally, when someone says that WHAT YOU THINK does not matter when your journal entries juxtaposed with the content of the icon make your usage of the icon clear, that is my cue to lip fart vigorously. Because context does matter and anyone who reads your words understands your context where this icon is concerned. Anyone who takes such word usage seriously and assumes you think goths really are mentally subnormal OR they think you are mocking the mentally subnormal needs a reality check, and frankly, that is not your problem.

Also, as an American, I live in a culture where some people try to wrest their way to the moral highground by insinuating that if you do not follow their way of thinking, you will end up corrupting people or creating greater harms that are ad reductio absurdam assertions at their core. Oh noes, the children will read this icon and immediately fall into line, calling every kid wearing a My Chemical Romance shirt a retard! All teens sporting black nail polish will find themselves in special education and adults who listen to Bauhaus will be forced to weave baskets whilst in a supervised-living coop just on the basis of your icon. I have no patience for any of this sort of slippery slope sentiment.

Personally, this is why you should keep the icon: Your word usage in an animated icon may immediately prejudice a handful of people against you because they do not know you well enough to understand you do not literally hate goths, retards or fat people. But of course, in the minds of such people, an icon means much more than your journal itself. They will search and wait until they find the sole nail in your journal sticking up so they can hammer it down. So few humans actually behave that way that I say it is safe to annoy or offend those who do. If you delete your icon on this basis, you may as well delete the entire journal because relative word choice is a mind field and you will ALWAYS run the risk of offending someone somewhere. It is a waste of time to worry about these sorts of things when you have made it clear to all who read you that you are not a cruel, nasty man.

And oh yeah, just in case I have not made it clear, I think cultural linguistics and the politicization of word choice is moronic. Yes, I said it. Moronic.

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

I'm on the "I thought it was funny" side. And people misinterpret pretty much anything, and react to explanations with snitty-fits of "well, humour isn't legitimate unless you make it unfunny with extensive disclaimers". For example, the icon I'm using here once got an "I hope that's not some kind of homophobic statement" comment when I used it on someone else's journal. Does it need an animated second panel which says "to be read in the context of Buffy slash, British English, and Heathers"? Or should people who can't figure it out either google, think, or just get straight on and hate me for misguided reasons?

[randomchris.livejournal.com]

The "fat is caused by eating too much" is quite offensive. My wife is currently trying to lose weight. She knows she is currently fat because she ate too much in the past. People actually stating it to her face are extremely upsetting to her. It's like pointing at a huge scar from a past incident and going "ha ha ha". She no longer eats much but is still fat. Comments like that could push people into comfort eating, tears or anorexia, none of which are healthy.

Similarly, the anorexia one is a severe trigger for anybody trying to get over anorexia.

In short, I'd also appreciate it if you would stop using it. Not because it's offensive or because I think you mean it, but because it could affect vulnerable people quite badly.

[randomchris.livejournal.com]

I meant to change that first paragraph and find a word other than offensive, but forgot. Not sure what word I would use instead.

[guyinahat.livejournal.com]

I've had the whole lj drama (http://purelyskindeep.livejournal.com/249363.html) about someone posting something that I found racist and offensive. However, before I got down in the dirt with the drama, the first thing I asked was whether there was an 'in joke' that I was missing, because it does make a difference.

It was only when it became clear there was no (ironic or otherwise)thought behind what they were saying that I properly took offence.


As I commented above, it boils down to whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of someone taking this the wrong way. Your post serves as a good straw poll on whether there is such. As far as I can see, while some people think it might be taken literally by someone else, nobody seems to have actually personally taken it the wrong way. Which is good.

The decider for me is the context. If you printed that icon text in a trashy tabloid newspaper then they would indeed be offensive. There would be a reasonable expectation of it adversely influencing idiots. However, this isn't a tabloid and your audience aren't idiots. So I personally don't see why you should censor yourself as if they were.

[dalglir.livejournal.com]

*I* know and *you* know and everyone who *knows you* knows, that the icon lampoons narrow minded fools who really do believe some of the messages that it flashes up. To take offense at it would be Missing The Point. But then again some readers, including recently friended folk or idle browsers, might not know you as well as we do and would take offense because its lampooning nature might not be readily apparent to them.

[cybik.livejournal.com]

I've seen people other than Andy use it and understood that they didn't actually subscribe to those beliefs.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Of the eighteen seperate comments in that icon, no less than thirteen of them could be taken as a direct attack upon me personally or my views. There are several others that attack good friends of mine.

I still think it's fairly fuckin' obvious that it's a joke, and I thought that when I saw it on strangers' journals also. I don't like it because I don't think it's witty enough, and uses the word 'shitty' twice, which shows a lack of imagination and vocabulary on the part of the maker (I know it wasn't you, so that's cool). But then, I get annoyed when people have badly cropped or pixellated icons, and I don't give them hassle, so I see no reason to criticise you for being more easily amused than me in this respect.

[pickwick.livejournal.com]

I think it's a great icon, and it usually makes me laugh. Even though, like marrog, many of the statements could apply to me. But some of it's things I'd be tempted to say to people when I'm in a mood (things like "your photography is shitty") and some of it's obviously taking the piss. I think people who are offended by one particular frame and not the others are missing the point - ALL of the statements are offensive, and deciding to get offended about the ONE that you feel applies to you is self-centred as hell. It's basically saying "I don't care what you say as long as it doesn't apply to me".

I'd use it as a way to root out stupid people - someone who got offended enough by it to defriend me, I wouldn't want on my flist in the first place, because I prize intelligence, tolerance and logic.

[nwhyte]

Would you feel happy about someone's icon that included the word "nigger"?

Would you feel comfortable explaining why you used this icon to my son, who has two sisters who have such severe learning disabilities that they cannot talk and are not toilet trained?

[andrewducker]

Would you feel happy about someone's icon that included the word "nigger"?

Depends entirely on the context. I'm surprised it's taken so long for someone to bring that up as an example, to be honest. It was the first thing I thought of.

Would you feel comfortable explaining why you used this icon to my son
Depends on the level of intelligence and maturity your son has. If he's very young, then no, but I wouldn't expect him to be reading my journal. I expect a certain level of intelligence and ability to read between the lines and understand deeper meaning from my readers. I don't feel that it's necessary that I write down to a level where people who don't understand that the literal meaning isn't the actual meaning can easily understand things.

I don't think everything should be banned if it fails the test of "Would it offend a child who was personally connected to it?"

If you'd got here about 16 hours ago I'd have been a lot less certain about all of the above, but the discussion has helped a lot in deciding what I feel about the whole situation. I'm still open to persuasion, of course.

[cheekbones3.livejournal.com]

We have the intelligence to realise what it means! Keep it.